Category: leadership

IQ and Leadership

Part of the explanation?

Why “movement” leaders tend to be, in general, incompetent mediocrities leads to a number theories.  There is of course Der Movement’s stringent ethnic affirmative action program. The dominance of Der Movement by Type I activists, who favor their own, for leadership, also is a factor.  Dissident movements tend to draw in marginal personalities, while the elevation of defective freakishness repels the less marginal; the lack of suitable candidates leads to marginal leaders. Leaders are almost always overt and public activists, typically attracting people who have “little to lose” IRL (unless they are trust fund babies or the retired wealthy).

Another mechanism is that even when other variables are controlled for, the perception (perception, NOT reality) of who is an effective leader is related to the leader’s IQ, but in a curvilinear and not linear fashion.  Thus, assuming an average IQ of 100, the peak for optimal perceived leadership is an IQ of 120 – not only are dumber people perceived as less effective, but smarter ones as well. One can theorize mechanisms for this phenomenon, but it is what it is.  Emphasis added:

Although researchers predominately test for linear relationships between variables, at times there may be theoretical and even empirical reasons for expecting nonlinear functions. We examined if the relation between intelligence (IQ) and perceived leadership might be more accurately described by a curvilinear single-peaked function. Following Simonton’s (1985) theory, we tested a specific model, indicating that the optimal IQ for perceived leadership will appear at about 1.2 standard deviations above the mean IQ of the group membership. The sample consisted of midlevel leaders from multinational private-sector companies. We used the leaders’ scores on the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT)-a measure of IQ-to predict how they would be perceived on prototypically effective leadership (i.e., transformational and instrumental leadership). Accounting for the effects of leader personality, gender, age, as well as company, country, and time fixed effects, analyses indicated that perceptions of leadership followed a curvilinear inverted-U function of intelligence. The peak of this function was at an IQ score of about 120, which did not depart significantly from the value predicted by the theory. As the first direct empirical test of a precise curvilinear model of the intelligence-leadership relation, the results have important implications for future research on how leaders are perceived in the workplace.

This may be another explanation for “movement” failure.  120 IQ people are intelligent no doubt, but have limitations.  Most prominent “movement” leaders would tend to be in this range (Hello Alt Right!  Hello Alt Wrong!) and more intelligent and capable people are weeded out (and for other reasons such as those discussed above).

But, but, but…”what about William Pierce?” Der Movement mutters.  There are those other variables to consider: “leader personality, gender, age, as well as company, country, and time fixed effects.”  Pierce benefited from ethnic affirmative action, although not particularly charismatic he had certain alpha male personality traits, he was tall and physically imposing, people respected him for giving up his academic career to associate with Rockwell, and there was a time/era effect – he came to prominence in an America more appreciative of the science/technical men; today’s Beavis-and-Butthead “movement” is unlikely to value an “egghead” physicist.

And consider Strom, likely equally intelligent, but never considered as leadership material even before his legal troubles.  Although ethnically acceptable, Strom’s personality and other traits could not compensate for a high-IQ (and likely contributed to a more negative view).  Gliebe was much more acceptable to the rank-and-file: how did that turn out?

Historically: Hitler was likely less intelligent than Goebbels, Mussolini less intelligent than Gentile or Evola, Codreanu less intelligent than Cuza, etc.  Francis Parker Yockey failed as a practical leader, and a careful reading of Coogan’s book suggests reasons why, some of which relate to Yockey’s own personality quirks and personal failings, but also because of jealousy over his obvious genius as well as the inability for him to effectively explain his concepts to the Type I riff-raff.

Getting around this problem would entail the high-IQ leader compensating like Pierce if possible, or surrounding himself with high-IQ advisers and listening to them, or a fundamental change in the “movement” that would allow it to overcome the societal prejudice against the higher-IQ.


Two Facets of Leadership

Effective and responsible exercise of power is essential.
There are two very basic facets of leadership:
1. The ability to obtain (and maintain) a position of leadership.  This ability may be innate – extroversion, ambition, aggressiveness, all the “dark triad” traits much admired by the “gamesters,” the ability to play the political game, a ruthless cunning, a “Machiavellian” mindset, etc.  This ability may be at least in part tangential to one’s self – a de jure or de facto affirmative action policy, nepotism (including hereditary monarchy), sexual favoritism (e.g., attractive and incompetent females pushed forward by male prurient interests), etc.

2. The ability to be an effective leader, and achieve goals and objectives, once in a position of power. This is for the most part derived from innate ability, although of course “circumstance” can sometimes play a role.
The vast majority of people are deficient in both aspects of leadership.  Very rare is the individual who combines both aspects to a high degree, such historical figures such as Napoleon and Hitler come to mind.  Also extremely rare are individuals who are strong in #2, but deficient in #1, but who nonetheless find themselves in positions of authority – such “happy accidents” may be due to real accidents of history, or perhaps such an individual finds themselves appointed to a leadership position by a higher authority who recognizes their competence.
The major problem in any organized society are those strong in #1, but deficient in #2. Such are those who fill the overwhelming majority (close to 100% in most cases) of leadership positions in a wide variety of enterprises: political and metapolitical, military, business, academia, private organizations and clubs of all types, etc. These make up virtually the entire political class in America – White politicians in any case – idiot savants whose only ability is self-promotion, the treasonous elites of the contemporary West. The “movement” has long been plagued by this phenomenon – the “wrong people in charge” problem.  This has done more to hold back human progress than anything else, this is responsible for the work-wasting friction of “office politics” that bedevils every organization under the sun, this is the pernicious aspect of human nature that a future re-ordering of society must, to the extent possible, correct.
Perfection in these matters is likely impossible; nevertheless, there is room for considerable improvement.  A re-ordering of the “movement,” preceding a re-ordering of society, must have as a foundation that leadership must be reserved for those who are strong in #2.  The top leadership will no doubt be those who combine strong aspects of both 1 and 2, but those strong in 1 only must be weeded out and replaced by those at least strong in 2, who can, at least, fill the bulk of leadership (as those strong in both 1 and 2 are rare, and will, by their nature, rise up toward the pinnacle positions at the top of the hierarchy).